Well I actually found this "old fashioned" way of film making quite refreshing in the current action ,SFX and lately agenda driven franchise movies of the last couple of years .

@Nexus71 said:

Well I actually found this "old fashioned" way of film making quite refreshing in the current action ,SFX and lately agenda driven franchise movies of the last couple of years .

Scorsese himself commented that comic book movies, namely Marvel movies, are not traditional cinema and I wholeheartedly agree. Don't get me wrong, they have their place and they can be fun when done right but they are not cinema in the classic sense.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/martin-scorsese-marvel.html

It did make made sad to think that this is most likely the Swan Song for the fellas and a worthy send-off it was. Scorsese, Pacino, DeNiro, and Pesci all in the same film. Marron!

I agree with Scorcese describing the comic book movies increasingly like "fun rides" in stead of actual films and despite how entertaining they might be the movies over the last 2-3 years have become increasingly formulaic that nowadays I won't even bother to see them all in the cinema anymore and usually pick the ones I have already invested in.Add to that the growing trend to infuse these movies with agendas with overly political correctness that stand out in these movies like a sore thumb since subtlety seems to be a thing scriptwriters have forgotten about.I think the long predicted "franchise fatigue" will only be hastened if the likes of Marvel and DC continue down the path they have set out for the upcoming phases of their respective franchises.

If this proves to be the swan song of Scorcese,DeNiro,Pacino and Pesci at least they went out on a high although I thought the movie managed to highlight that Pacino still has got it despite some rather poor movies of late.Even DeNiro who has suffered from some similar problems providing the script is good still is able to shine.And I actually found Pesci's against grain subtle acting quite a revelation considering people mostly remember him for his energetic characterisations in movies like Goodfellas,JFK and Casino.What Hollywood currently is missing are those small to medium size independent film companies like New Line,Orion,Hemdale,Canon etc which were so prevalent in the 80's to the mid 90's.Companies that dared to take risks and give original content a chance but in the current era the only major film company that at least tries to give original content a chance I am afraid to say seems to be Sony and that is a sad state of affairs.

I expected it to be better.

@Nexus71 said:

I agree with Scorcese describing the comic book movies increasingly like "fun rides" in stead of actual films and despite how entertaining they might be the movies over the last 2-3 years have become increasingly formulaic that nowadays I won't even bother to see them all in the cinema anymore and usually pick the ones I have already invested in.Add to that the growing trend to infuse these movies with agendas with overly political correctness that stand out in these movies like a sore thumb since subtlety seems to be a thing scriptwriters have forgotten about.I think the long predicted "franchise fatigue" will only be hastened if the likes of Marvel and DC continue down the path they have set out for the upcoming phases of their respective franchises.

If this proves to be the swan song of Scorcese,DeNiro,Pacino and Pesci at least they went out on a high although I thought the movie managed to highlight that Pacino still has got it despite some rather poor movies of late.Even DeNiro who has suffered from some similar problems providing the script is good still is able to shine.And I actually found Pesci's against grain subtle acting quite a revelation considering people mostly remember him for his energetic characterisations in movies like Goodfellas,JFK and Casino.What Hollywood currently is missing are those small to medium size independent film companies like New Line,Orion,Hemdale,Canon etc which were so prevalent in the 80's to the mid 90's.Companies that dared to take risks and give original content a chance but in the current era the only major film company that at least tries to give original content a chance I am afraid to say seems to be Sony and that is a sad state of affairs.

They all do garbage films to feed the monkey. I thought Pacino's attempt at a midwest accent was a bit off as sometimes you heard it and sometimes you didn't but he was still good. I agree that the social engineering is a bit jarring but let's face it, even if that was excluded these comic book films are not artistic. I think serious actors are kinda embarrassed to do them. Kinda like how Harrison Ford hates the Han Solo character and he ain't even that good of an actor but in his mind, he is above it. Once again I wholeheartedly agree with you that those small studios like Miramax back in the 90s pumped out some of the best films because they were not scared to take chances. These formulaic comic book movies are not worth the price of a ticket IMO. I wait for them to be released on disk before I see them. And Sony, man, how they fucked up the X-Men. Sad state of affairs indeed.

X-Men is Fox that is now owned by the Mouse Sony only has Spiderman and I am not certain whether they had the Fantastic Four but they did screw up Ghostbusters.But apart from that they still make some new content like District 9,Elysium,Snowpiercer,Passengers,Predestination and even had some female centric movies like Salt and the Underworld series.

Second Viewing Thoughts: (Spoilers ahead)

• I've realized that De Niro's entire performance is a study in world-weariness, not just the part where he plays Frank in his old age. One should remember that Frank killed men in war, and that is likely to weigh upon a person for life. This weariness is a decent reason for why De Niro moves slowly throughout the film. Either that, or the idea that the narrator of Goodfellas says about the mob boss in it moving "slow" because he didn't have to rush for anybody... of course, both of them could be reasons for it, too.

• The storyline about Frank's daughter Patty becoming estranged from him does, indeed, feel tacked onto the movie somewhat, as stated on this board - instead of being organically written into the film. Methinks the film could've spent more time showing more about Patty loving Jimmy so much, and not just focusing on her dislike of Frank's mobster partner Russell.

@Satch_the_man said:

Second Viewing Thoughts: (Spoilers ahead)

• I've realized that De Niro's entire performance is a study in world-weariness, not just the part where he plays Frank in his old age. One should remember that Frank killed men in war, and that is likely to weigh upon a person for life. This weariness is a decent reason for why De Niro moves slowly throughout the film. Either that, or the idea that the narrator of Goodfellas says about the mob boss in it moving "slow" because he didn't have to rush for anybody... of course, both of them could be reasons for it, too.

• The storyline about Frank's daughter Patty becoming estranged from him does, indeed, feel tacked onto the movie somewhat, as stated on this board - instead of being organically written into the film. Methinks the film could've spent more time showing more about Patty loving Jimmy so much, and not just focusing on her dislike of Frank's mobster partner Russell.

I think they had A LOT of scenes of Patty showing her admiration for Jimmy. The school report scene, family outings, dancing, Ice cream, etc. I'm not sure how much more time you think they should have spent on this.

Nazi, I'm well aware of all those scenes, but I feel that they should have gone deeper into Patty's mindset... like, maybe revealing that she felt safer around Jimmy than she did around her own father. Remember that beating Frank gave the shopkeeper that the daughter was horrified by?

I stand in my position that the storyline could've been more organically written into the script. Peace, no beefs.

@Satch_the_man said:

Nazi, I'm well aware of all those scenes, but I feel that they should have gone deeper into Patty's mindset... like, maybe revealing that she felt safer around Jimmy than she did around her own father. Remember that beating Frank gave the shopkeeper that the daughter was horrified by?

I stand in my position that the storyline could've been more organically written into the script. Peace, no beefs.

Personally, I thought it was pretty evident that she was in fact terrorized of him and Russel and had a lot of contempt for them. And Russel knew it! Even before he beat down the grocery clerk you could tell that she was terrified to admit to Frank that he had in fact pushed her because of what he might do. I mean, I get it, you wanted it portrayed as obvious as possible but sometimes time restraints can impose subtlety and in no way is it always a detriment to the story. The film was already quite long and I think they made it evident enough that she greatly admired Jimmy.

I wonder how much of the audience knew the story more as history, about Hoffa, unions, organized crime , and less as just a general movie mob tale. A question I also have is who believes this specific confession about the Hoffa incident. Like all unsolved cases there are other versions about who did it.

@znexyish said:

I wonder how much of the audience knew the story more as history, about Hoffa, unions, organized crime , and less as just a general movie mob tale. A question I also have is who believes this specific confession about the Hoffa incident. Like all unsolved cases there are other versions about who did it.

Yeah, it is a matter of debate amongst mobster lore aficionados. I've heard some say that Sheeran was full of shit while others tend to believe him. I would imagine that Scorese is amongst the ones that believe him and I personally am neutral on it. I remember the rumor about Hoffa being buried under Giants Stadium or stuffed in an oil drum. The stories go on and on.

@movie_nazi said:

@Satch_the_man said:

Nazi, I'm well aware of all those scenes, but I feel that they should have gone deeper into Patty's mindset... like, maybe revealing that she felt safer around Jimmy than she did around her own father. Remember that beating Frank gave the shopkeeper that the daughter was horrified by?

I stand in my position that the storyline could've been more organically written into the script. Peace, no beefs.

Personally, I thought it was pretty evident that she was in fact terrorized of him and Russel and had a lot of contempt for them. And Russel knew it! Even before he beat down the grocery clerk you could tell that she was terrified to admit to Frank that he had in fact pushed her because of what he might do. I mean, I get it, you wanted it portrayed as obvious as possible but sometimes time restraints can impose subtlety and in no way is it always a detriment to the story. The film was already quite long and I think they made it evident enough that she greatly admired Jimmy.

Nazi, you made some good points in your post. However, I did not want things portrayed as obviously as possible. The scenes you mentioned about the outings and the school report really weren't that many.... I realize that Patty is a supporting character who probably didn't warrant that many scenes. What I posted up above were in no way the last words on the film. By confronting my post with anger (words all in caps), you reduce the possibilities of the dialogue's outcome. Who says quantity would've been the answer to improving Patty? Or that this is simply a screenplay issue? What you read into the film probably should've been conveyed better....in some way.

@Satch_the_man said:

Nazi, you made some good points in your post. However, I did not want things portrayed as obviously as possible. The scenes you mentioned about the outings and the school report really weren't that many.... I realize that Patty is a supporting character who probably didn't warrant that many scenes. What I posted up above were in no way the last words on the film. By confronting my post with anger (words all in caps), you reduce the possibilities of the dialogue's outcome. Who says quantity would've been the answer to improving Patty? Or that this is simply a screenplay issue? What you read into the film probably should've been conveyed better....in some way.

I mean, I guess it should have been conveyed better? Remember that Frank is the main character of the story, not Jimmy. We find out at the end that Patty won't even talk to Frank even after he is so old he cannot even take care of himself. That is a lot of hate to hold on to and properly displays her contempt for him and undoubtedly most of that is because she suspects Frank's involvement in Jimmy's termination.

I'm sorry, did you say I confronted your post with anger with all caps or were you simply illustrating a hypothetical?

If Marty didn't do this story who else would. More precisely who else knows this terrain like he does. Sure this group has done this before and have worked together before. They could do this in their sleep to tell the truth. Maybe even dozed off while filming, who knows. Don't see this coming around again anytime soon. Could be a farewell to the genre done in this way.